Sikorsky wins Presidential helo competition

[chopper2004]

Sikorsky wins Marine One Presidential helicopter contract | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/SikorskywinsMarineOnePresidentialhelicoptercontract#.U2qtedq 9KSM)


http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=8383cce4926d5410VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD

Cheers

[Lonewolf_50]

Did anybody NOT see this coming? :confused:

Dear Sikorsky and UTC:

It is in your interest, and in the nation's interest, that you get this right.

[krypton_john]

Wow, about $200 million per machine delivered!

That's some pretty pricey upgrades on some S-92 airframes!

[noooby]

Well done Sikorsky!! You managed to not lose a competition in which you were the only entrant, with a helicopter that didn't even meet the cabin size specifications in the original competition. :ok: :ugh:

Will it have a Main Gearbox that can actually run 30 minutes without oil???

And AW still got paid out for losing the original competition!!! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[espresso drinker]

Noooby, I can't believe that you beat me to posting about the lack run dry time. That's my favorite subject when anything to do with the S92 is posted.

Anyway this is good news for the Canadians I guess. With all this money going to Sikorsky from the US government hopefully they can sort out this 'issue' with the MGB.

It still surprises me how an aircraft can be certified to the 'latest' standard through a loop hole introduced specifically for that aircraft when it fails the run dry test and then when this comes to light (unfortunately through very tragic events) the aircraft still keeps it's certification?

[dangermouse]

to be fair the S92 was not certified through a specific loop hole as you imply, the rules always only required compliance with the 30 mins dry run time if you could not demonstrate that the chance of oil loss was 'extremely remote'.

Remember that after all it WAS certified by more than one authority using that rule, they were not bent for that aircarft, it's just that every other type managed to meet the 30 min capability regardless of whether thay actually needed to (other types may also have been able to demonstrate to the authorities that loss of lubrication was extremely remote, as was done on the S92, in which case they wouldn't need a 30 mins capability either)

What is surprising is that after at least 2 demonstarted instances where lubrication was lost on the 92 the Cat A certification wasn't pulled, because I would argue that circumstances have shown that the 'extremely remote' chance, isnt!!

anyway I am happy that POTUS will be flying on the second best platform while AW continue to delivery the best one to other heads of state...

[tottigol]

If Sikorsky keeps the same development pace as their Canadian Cyclone, it may take a couple of US presidential terms before one gets to be actually used.

[Aussiecop]

Anyone know how long this thing has been dragging out now? It feels like 10 years...

[terminus mos]

to be fair the S92 was not certified through a specific loop hole as you imply, the rules always only required compliance with the 30 mins dry run time if you could not demonstrate that the chance of oil loss was 'extremely remote'.

So, Mr Mouse, how many S-92s have lost all their MGB oil since the cooler issue was fixed in 2009? Would you like a clue? Maybe now, total,loss probability could be termed "extremely remote"?

[Stinger10]

Things will be different this time on VXX

Navy had a competition in name only, where only one company supplied a bid knowing they were the only bidder since ALL the other companies made very public statements about not bidding well prior to the submittal dates

The Navy has never acknowledged that the "out of control requirements" that doomed the VH-71 (such as the ability to fly and communicate in a nuke environment or missile defenses), are not included in this version of VXX????

By Sen. McCain's math he used to ensure a kill on the VH-71, the S-92 VXX is already $206M per aircraft (vs $40M commercial S-92) in the contract awarded yesterday.

The Prime contractor (L/M) on VH-71 is back as the major sub, on this version of VXX

I guess the Navy is right though. Things will be different this time with VXX; like Sik. got the sole source win (along with CRH, and H-53K), and the Navy will NEVER let this program fail again, regardless of the cost. :ok:

[SansAnhedral]

So, Mr Mouse, how many S-92s have lost all their MGB oil since the cooler issue was fixed in 2009? Would you like a clue? Maybe now, total,loss probability could be termed "extremely remote"?

For someone throwing stones at another, you might at least want to get the issue correct.

The oil leakage had nothing to do with the oil cooler. It was the filter housing assembly and its use of titanium studs. One of three studs galled causing failure in flight which released the filter bowl from the MGB casting. The original filter elements were actually a finer grade than even new-from-the-barrell oil, and therefore clogged more quickly and were replaced more often - resulting in more "duty cycles" on the housing studs and nuts.

The idea behind the "extremely remote" justification was that SAC claimed that any leak would have occured in the oil cooler loop, and therefore could be bypassed with valves to isolate the leak from the remainder of the system.

It was considered "extremely remote" that any component on the MGB side of the circuit could spring a leak...an assessment, in my opnion, that's entirely bollocks.

If anything, the issues seen in the south pacific and Newfoundland only serve to prove just how non-robust their tapered roller bearing gearbox design is.

[Stinger10]

Then why won't Sik. put it on a test stand and PROVE it. Just like the Canadian Transport Board wants?:=

What caused the leak is irrelevant. The S-92 MGB failed due to oil starvation btwn 10-15 min in two "real world" examples.

[212man]

Then why won't Sik. put it on a test stand and PROVE it

Prove what? The MGB fails after about 10 minutes without oil, that's a demonstrated fact (on a test stand) and is why they installed the manual bypass (now auto-bypass) function retrospectively to the initial design.

Sans is right though, that the failures we saw were nothing to do with that part of the system, and were not containable.

[Boudreaux Bob]

The Navy will NEVER let this program fail again, regardless of the cost.

Like the Marines and the Osprey you mean.:=

[espresso drinker]

DM thanks for the clarification.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Recommendation A11-01 (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandations-recommendations/aviation/2011/rec_a1101.asp)

I like the last sentence ("At this time, the actions taken to date have not been sufficiently advanced to reduce the risks to transportation safety"), but for some reason this is now over a year old. maybe this subject is giving the respective authorities a bit of a head ache.

If anyone has any more upto date information I'd appreciate it.

[Lonewolf_50]

Maybe Sikorsky will superfinish the gears for this mod of the S-92. I hear that Boeing is having some success with that approach in Apache. (Third or fourth hand info, so maybe wrong).

Might that approach advance the capability to run dry toward a real 30 minutes, given the lower operating temps often seen with superfinished gears? :confused:

Happy to be corrected if I am misunderstanding a key point ...

[Stinger10]

I am sure that there is sufficient funding in the new VXX, at $206M per aircraft, to redesign the transmission.

Why would they ever risk the Pres. of the US in an aircraft that doesn't provide the same capability as every new civil certified helicopter has to meet today?

[Stinger10]

It could do the trick. Not sure, but Sik. needs to qualify MGB then, wouldn't you think? It would put the issue to rest for the S-92.

[Stinger10]

I guess that's admitting you have an issue with the MGB to all your current S-92 customers though.

Tough situation for Sik. Its hard to add 6000 lbs to the same UH-60 MGB and rotorhead and not impact its performance.

[Hilife]

I have been watching the VXX competition for a number of years now, and painful as it is for some to acknowledge, I do believe a couple of home truths are in order.

In January 2005, the US Navy awarded a $1.7 billion system development and demonstration contract to the LM led, Team US101, so to do much the same thing nine years’ later for half a billion Dollars less says a lot, as I suspect most of this money will be spent on risk reduction than actually building the test helicopters and simulators.

As neither the US101, nor the VH-92 met the speed and range requirements criteria at the time of the 2005 award, both required substantial engine, transmission and rotor redesigns, so clearly both platforms on offer back then had risk.

Yes the 101 has a slightly larger cabin, however Navy press releases at the time - post selection - reveal that both cabins met the Navy’s size requirements, although the 101 did not meet the Navy’s 20/20/18 crash worthiness requirements.

Also, noting the Jan 2005 award announcement date, the decision would have been made in late 2004, at which point the S-92 airframe (let alone a VH-92) was brand new with just a few thousand flight hours across the fleet, and therefore an unproven type (the first S-92 delivery to PHI was not until September 2004), so there would have been even more risk for a VH-92 win would there not?

As for the IDMGB, press reports suggest Sikorsky has been developing its next-generation MGB for some time now, so hard to imagine that this will not be a baseline fit in a 2023 delivery S-92. Though I cannot imagine a Marine One crew continuing flight for 30-minutes or so, post indications of a complete loss of main gearbox lubricant, with the President sat in the rear. More likely an immediate safe landing, and no I do not see the President being 30-minutes or more offshore in a helicopter, but not having first hand knowledge of actual Marine One rotary OPS, I stand to be corrected.

As has been so eloquently pointed out by Boudreaux Bob on another thread, there are some on PPRuNe who appear to have a gratuitous hatred of all things Sikorsky, particularly from the West Country, but these same people would do well to note that not only did both Agusta and Westland’s build some 900 Sikorsky helicopters under license (that’s a hell of a lot of tax revenue and employment for several generations), but that it was Sikorsky who Westland’s (and Agusta) turned to for financial and engineering assistance from 1986 to 1991 to sort out a whole host of technical issues plaguing the EH101 program - which will have since gone a long way to making it the helicopter it is today.

It is well documented why the VH-71 program was cancelled and with time moving on and platforms getting older, the Navy issued a new VXX competition in 2010, and in order to reduce risk and entry into service timelines, the Navy insisted on a COTS solution.

Boeing - Noting the COTS requirement, Boeing’s V-22 was not an option, as it does not comply with the tender requirements, so this left the BV234 or license built AW101. Much as I love the venerable Chinook, downwash, footprint, air transportability issues and through life costs, let alone no current production line for the 234 and latest FAR Part 29 compliance would surely have caused Boeing to back away from competing further with a civil certified commercial platform type.

As for the opportunity to build the AW101 under license in the US, with Boeing having full intellectual property and production rights for the helicopter (so not teaming with AW at all), this idea was kicked off in the press four years’ ago and by their own admission was a kneejerk reaction, but died a death in 2012 when AW teamed-up with Northrop Grumman. I can only guess that either AW and Boeing were unable to agree T&C’s, or AW did not like the numbers, what with Boeing having it all their own way.

Airbus Helicopters – I suspect AH will have considered an AH225 offering, but chose not to join in the fray at all - as I recall.

AgustaWestland – So that leaves AW with a 101 solution. Noting the ‘likely’ attention to compliance with the all the latter FAA Part 29 Amendments (not just the transmission), including a 20/20/18g high mass component crash retention certification (something the Navy likes) and cost to build and support 21 to 27 odd helicopters and 2 simulators over a twenty five year - and more - period, just how well would the AW101 score on an FAR 29 conformity and acquisition and through life costing’s tally verses its slightly smaller, 2 engined, lower maintenance requirement competitors?

Maybe not so well, which is possibly why AW decided against bidding, as I suspect just like the CRH program, it was going to be a much more expensive solution, and this for a President who would not want to be seen spending too much of US tax payers money on a replacement Marine One helicopter fleet while voters are still feeling the pinch and sequestration is hitting US defense industries hard.

Dangermouse - The 225, 92, 101 and even the CH-47/234 all have their followers, and yet as is the nature of aircraft, all have their issues – good and bad, but each can be better suited for customer requirements, locations, risks and costs than the other, but clearly some don’t agree, so cry foul with suggestions of a ‘restrictive bid process.’

The same could be said of a number of UK helicopter bids, both military and civil these past 10-years and more in which AW has been favoured at the expense of other more suitable platforms, but funny enough, I don’t see you complaining about these.

Reading the press release would suggest that this will be the 11th HoS win for the S-92, so might I inquire as to how many HoS’s fly the world’s ‘Best’ helicopter, and while you are at it, you might want to list to all us Pruners the top ten, or five, or three, or how about just the top ‘One’ Offshore and Airline operators of the world’s ‘Best’ helicopter and just why it is that the AW101 is ‘the helicopter of choice’ for demanding operations in the medium to heavy platform range for discerning Offshore, Airline and VIP commercial operators?

Why would they ever risk the Pres. of the US in an aircraft that doesn't provide the same capability as every new civil certified helicopter has to meet today?

When certified in 2004, the S-92 was the first (and only) rotorcraft in the world certified by the FAA to FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 47, at the time the latest US safety regulations, as well as the equivalent European Aviation Safety Agency/Joint Aviation Authorities (EASA/JAA) standards, so would you care to inform us of any other helicopters considered for the VXX competition which are either equal to, or newer in certification compliance than the S-92A?

[Stinger10]

At least you acknowledge that this had little to do with the best or most appropriate product for the job, and has MUCH to do with US politics....

When certified in 2004, the S-92 was the first (and only) rotorcraft in the world certified by the FAA to FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 47, at the time the latest US safety regulations, as well as the equivalent European Aviation Safety Agency/Joint Aviation Authorities (EASA/JAA) standards, so would you care to inform us of any other helicopters considered for the VXX competition which are either equal to, or newer in certification compliance than the S-92A?

I don't believe I qualified my statement about aircraft "bidding for the VXX", but since you mention it, every combat helicopter qualified, including the maligned but battle proven AW-101, has to qualify a level of run dry capability for the MGB in case of battle damage.

Also, as the First FAR Part 29 qualified aircraft, its interesting they chose to bypass the run-dry test for the S-92 in lieu of paperwork. However, several FAR part 29 and 27 aircraft have met or exceeded the 30 min run dry test. AW139, AW189 (50 min), AW169 (pending), AIRBUS EC-175,NH-90 (Military), EC-145T2, Bell 429, Bell 525 (pending) just to name a few.......

Why would they put the Pres. of the US in a helicopter that hasn't proven a basic capability resident in the rest of the FAR 29/27 commercial and combat helicopter fleet? I am confident the Navy will pick up the tab to ensure the S-92 develops the capability tho.....

I don't think asking legitimate questions regarding what is being widely reported is Anti-Sikorsky. I just think that when a DoD supplier keeps getting non-competed contract awards (after all competition is a condition, and not a label that gets applied), and for this vendor its constant (Navy MH-60s, USAF CRH, CH-53K, and VXX), you end getting shortchanged in terms of quality and price. Much like the US car companies in the 70's when they were protected from competition. It wasn't until barriers were removed, and true competition took place did market factors take over. Ultimately US car companies were forced to produce a better product at a better price (FACT). Same applies here.

[Lonewolf_50]

I am sure that there is sufficient funding in the new VXX, at $206M per aircraft, to redesign the transmission.
I doubt a redesign so much as a mod to an existing design. That is what I was thinking when I tossed out the superfinishing of gears as a possible mitigation.
Why would they ever risk the Pres. of the US in an aircraft that doesn't provide the same capability as every new civil certified helicopter has to meet today?
I recall (well over ten years ago) the discussion I had with a programs guy about replacing the VH-3. S-92 had already begun initial flight testing. He pointed out to me that were the competition to happen that week, see Hilife's post for better depth, the aircraft system was not mature enough to compete or even have a seat at the table.

Turned out to be true, in spades.

This recollection informed my terse little example letter up there to the folks now undertaking to make this program work.

[JohnDixson]

Stinger, the 92 box has the same outward layout, and that's about where it ends.

Almost forgot, the 53K spec calls out a 30 min run dry capability, so while I have not seen this VH requirement document, it would seem a safe bet that NAVAIR requirements will be consistent.

[noooby]

Don't forget that although the 101 is a military machine it is civil certified. Only one civil operator though, Japan Police. Market they were aiming for was offshore oil, but the cost and the small number of rigs that could take it killed that idea.

[Stinger10]

......the aircraft system was not mature enough to compete or even have a seat at the table.


Funny, That's not what Sik. claimed the last time around.

So what has the S-92 developed in the last 10 years? They are a good Off-shore aircraft. The only attempt to militatrize the S-92 (Cyclone) IS considered the "worst acquisition program in Canadian history" by the PM of Canada. Is there any doubt that the new S-92 VXX will be about as standard as the President's limo?

Almost forgot, the 53K spec calls out a 30 min run dry capability, so while I have not seen this VH requirement document, it would seem a safe bet that NAVAIR requirements will be consistent.

The whole premise behind the NEW VXX program is whatever civil certification and configuration the aircraft currently has will go "as is" into the program. So while we can hypothesize about what they "might" do, the program is set up so if its not in the aircraft as certified, its not going in the aircraft or it will invalidate the aircraft's existing certification. That's how NAVAIR is claiming they will save a bunch of money this time as opposed to the previous effort.

SO unless NAVAIR is going to change the basic premise and objective of the program, which I contend would have allowed more bidders to compete, what you see, is what you get.:ok:

[Stinger10]

I recall AW saying that civil cert was too long ago to be valid for the current 101. NAVAIR not accepting the military cert for the 101 as valid was the reason the team of NGC & AW decided not to bid, if I remember the press stories....:ugh:

[SansAnhedral]

The VXX S-92 will almost certainly have an ALS fitted.

But I am sure now we will likely see the completion of the long awaited, much ballyhooed in 2008, yet currently conspicuously missing Improved-Durability MGB for the S-92.

Its almost like Sikorsky intended to use the funding from the initial VXX competition back in 2004 to help fund the requisite MHP upgrades (or perhaps vice versa).

But now 10 years later, this award just may help ballast the steaming pile of repeated failures that is the CH-148 and get the guys in Fort Worth to finish off the new box for use in both programs.

None of this really solves the S-92's desperate need for a 5th blade, which was on the drawing board from all the way back on VXX's first time around.

[Stinger10]

BINGO. Your tax dollars hard at work, instead of the company paying for the R&D like they proposed in Canada.

IF they put a compliant MGB and 5th blade on the S-92, it will be everything intended, and a very strong aircraft in every way.

[Hedski]

But that will all put more cost on the aircraft. As it stands a 'standard' 40 million USD 92 ends up costing more once you pay for the replacement parts required to solve the problems of lack lustre and plain lazy design on the OEM's part. Now imagine all the things they'll charge for when it comes to VXX, new MGB, 5th blade, and that's just the start……:ugh:

Synical but waiting with baited breath to hear about the final product.

H

[dangermouse]

If I recall correctly the original VXX spec stated that no credit could be taken for any existing qualification, so the fact that the 101 was military and civil certified and the 92 was Jar29 certified was actually irrelevant to NAVAIR, the entire aircraft (whatever was selected) was going to be fully qualified against a set of NAVAIR requirements.

is the same still true?

[Stinger10]

That's not accurate. You had to have either a current US military cert, or a current civil cert. So if you fell in the middle like an AW101 or NH-90, you were not considered currently certified and made you a non-starter compared to a currently US military or civil certified aircraft.

Also, the NAVAIR plan was to have the FAA certification maintained and only have NAVAIR certify certain elements of the aircraft that the FAA would waive. Which means the aircraft would have to go through STC's for any changes and be maintained by FAA certified mechs which HMX-1 doesn't have. They still use Marine maintenance for security reasons.

All this remains to be seen whether it can be accomplished or is really an end run around the NAVAIR testing mandate, which they would impose if the aircraft is going to be certified by them. (See P-8 program). If the NAVY ends up certifying the entire aircraft, then other vendors would have submitted proposals because ANY existing certification would have been simply a starting point for the Navy certification.

[Lonewolf_50]

Funny, That's not what Sik. claimed the last time around.
Funny, if you actually read my post, you'd realize I was not referring to the bid process that AW won. This was while S-92 was undergoing flight test, which means BEFORE THE FIRST COMMERCIAL DELIVERY!

SO unless NAVAIR is going to change the basic premise and objective of the program, which I contend would have allowed more bidders to compete, what you see, is what you get.:ok: I note the continual obsession with the term "compete."

I am not sure if you have noticed, but the aviation industry has been slowly consolidating, not expanding, over the last 15-20 years. That does not make for more competition, it makes for less.

No question NAVAIR made a meal of the 101 VH deal. I don't think anyone gets to declare victory on that score, other than whomever could win political points for cancelling a program that was a mess.

[FC80]

Is there actually any modicum of truth in the rumours that there was going to be a 5th blade added to the 92?

I've heard it from a million different people ranging from TREs to spotters and everyone in between.

[SansAnhedral]

Is there actually any modicum of truth in the rumours that there was going to be a 5th blade added to the 92?

I've heard it from a million different people ranging from TREs to spotters and everyone in between.

I've personally seen and was involved with design layouts of such a while back, but what progress since is anyone's guess

[jimf671]

Did anybody NOT see this coming? :confused:

Post of the week.




(Do you think this might precipitate a 92 that rides more like a 21st century helicopter than a 20th century tractor?)

[heli1]

Has no one noticed that a couple of VIP S-92 customers later upgraded to the AW101 ? What do they know that the US President has yet to find out?

[terminus mos]

Sans, of course, I meant filter, not cooler. Human error caused by late night fatigue. But the fact remains, the oil has largely stayed in the box ever since.

5th blade won't happen for civil S-92s anytime soon. SAC is selling all they can make right now, helicopter operators are making money with the aircraft and they are more dispatch reliable than the EC225.

[Lonewolf_50]

I've personally seen and was involved with design layouts of such a while back, but what progress since is anyone's guess
While I suppose the fifth blade would make for a smoother ride, I'm guessing a significant retuning of the vibes and mitigations would be in order. Wonder if that is a line item in the budget ...
5th blade won't happen for civil S-92s anytime soon.
If stuck in the Pres bird, might that not violate the boundaries of the offering? I hear that AW ran into some requirements creep a few years ago, and we all know how that worked out. :mad:
(Do you think this might precipitate a 92 that rides more like a 21st century helicopter than a 20th century tractor?)
Never had the chance to ride in the 92. How does it compare to riding in the back of a Blackhawk, which I have done.
Has no one noticed that a couple of VIP S-92 customers later upgraded to the AW101 ? What do they know that the US President has yet to find out?
The ride? :confused:

[JohnDixson]

LW and Sans,

In preparation for the original VH selection process, the SA 92 Program ( under Nick Lappos' leadership ) modified one of the test aircraft into what was essentially a VH Phase 1 compliant machine. In that machine were installed not three, but six* FG's ( force generators ) and the ride, both in the cockpit and cabin, was very good indeed.
* I think it was six. It was at least five, of that I am certain.

[Stinger10]

Again. According to the VXX program plan that NAVAIR just awarded, and claimed a cost savings victory on, as far as airframe development goes, whatever is CURRENTLY FAA certified on the S-92 is what they get. ANYTHING else either has to be done as an STC or it goes into the NAVAIR certification realm which opens the aircraft up to the same pitfalls of extensive testing that killed the VH-71 program. Which was where 90% of the cost growth in the VH-71 program developed, test time. (FACT)

L/W: imagine the vibration issues if the UH-60 were 6000 lbs heavier with the same 4 bladed system and blade chord width. That's the challenge. You can only do so much with FG's to null it out. 5th blade and slightly narrower blades are the next step.

The aircraft would live up to expectation and the aircraft Nick Lappos envisioned, IF they developed it as advertised: 5th blade, Upgraded transmission, FBW flight controls.

SAC is selling all they can make right now, helicopter operators are making money with the aircraft and they are more dispatch reliable than the EC225.

As is, the S-92 is exactly what the original name said it was a "HeliBus".

[Stinger10]

am not sure if you have noticed, but the aviation industry has been slowly consolidating, not expanding, over the last 15-20 years. That does not make for more competition, it makes for less.


Not trying to sound condescending here but its a worthwhile discussion:

Competition is not a label, it's a condition that results from 2 (minimum) rivals actively bidding to win something. As a condition, the environment has to be created that enables the condition to develop. When over-control, protectionism, or lack of trust in the market occurs, the catalyst for competition to occur is absent. The market has no choice but to contract. The responsibility to create the condition where competition can occur is not on the seller (suppliers), but is on the buyer (DoD in this case).

While your observation that the aviation industry may be slowly going through a contraction cycle, there are sectors such as the commercial helicopter industry has boomed in the last 10 years. That growth was due to active and healthy competition.

Why didn't it get noticed? The 3 major US Helicopter OEM's are very dependent on DoD, and not particularly well balanced. They go as DoD goes.

Boeing Vertol has nothing in the civil market, Sikorsky only has S-92 and S-76 (a few little S-300's), and Bell only recently has refocused (thanks to Garrison) on civil after a long distraction with V-22, and H-1s. The top two companies in the world in terms of TOTAL sales are off-shore; AIRBUS (Eurocopter) and AW. Both have a very broad product line and are well balanced between military and civil. They were well positioned to grow with the commercial helicopter market.

Why is the US market so important that you have 5 global OEM's all fighting over it? Even with all the market growth, It still represents a huge percentage of the global helicopter market.

As the largest, single consumer of helicopters in the market, why can't DoD seem to foment a competitive environment in which they would directly benefit? Instead DoD seems to do everything they can to kill the competitive condition because they are execution risk petrified. DoD leadership has been very vocal about leveraging competition in its favor, and then the armed services do the exact opposite. :mad:

[Lonewolf_50]

As the largest, single consumer of helicopters in the market, why can't DoD seem to foment a competitive environment in which they would directly benefit? A few reasons that have nothing to do with building the better helicopter, and a lot to do with federal laws and federal budgets, and cost.

1. Because the DoD is not the commercial market.
2. Because the logistics tail is immensely cheaper when you have fewer TMS, not more. See USN Helo Master Plan, whose genesis was earl 90's (perhaps even before that).
3. Because federal contracts require a wide variety of in built inefficiencies due to how federal regs are written.
4. The industry developed as rapidly as it did due in part to an immense infusion of federal dollars, from the fifties to the present.
5. The DoD has as part of its remit, as does the federal government when it comes to defense contracts, to sustain the AMERICAN industrial base.

Now, since you probably already know that, I wonder at why you still typed that rant about how competition in and of itself is inherently virtuous and has no drawbacks.

Now, is competition good? Can be. The competition for UTTAS was a good deal. Competition for F-35 ... not sure. Competition for the "light" part of the Navy's light/heavy mix ended up in the F-18. If you've read "the Pentagon Paradox" you'll find that a great many people within the system were appalled at how that turned out. F-18 has since become the E/F, which once again was a decision rife with controversey.

I recall back in the 80's when the Sec Def was able the leverage the developmet of the F-20 as a competing export fighter to the F-16, which was beginning take the place of the F-5 family as the next export fighter, to the point where GD eventually dropped the price of the F-16 multi year deal by about 4 million per copy. That's real money, in those days.

There were other examples, that's the one I am most familiar with. As to how virtuous European Helicopter companies are, NH-90 ... sing me its praises, program-wise. :p

Insofar as American helicopter companies and the commercial market, I share your concerns that they have gone about their business as though they intended to work themselves out of it ... but I am not convinced that the DoD is to blame for that. I find your assertion along those lines of dubious merit.

Textron and UTC, as parent companies, are run by the standard pile of HBS suits. I'll stop there. :mad:

[Stinger10]

A few reasons that have nothing to do with building the better helicopter, and a lot to do with federal laws and federal budgets, and cost.

Too bad none of those reasons or rationale say anything about restricting competition. As a matter of fact most are in place to TRY to ensure competition.......

Uncle.

You are right. The acq. system is utterly defendable and you cannot fix something that isn't broken? :D

[Lonewolf_50]

Stinger, this line of crap is beneath you.
You are right. The acq. system is utterly defendable and you cannot fix something that isn't broken? :D
That isn't my position on the acq system.

Your pretense that somehow "competition" is the ultimate solution ignores the details of the problem ... and I think we actually agree that there are non trivial problems in the system. (Case in point would be how AW 101 died its VH death ... )

I seem to recall an old saying about complex problems having a lot of simple, and wrong, solution sets. :p

Cheers.

[Stinger10]

Don't get me wrong. I respect your knowledge and understanding of the Navy system and how we arrived at this point. Its good.

Competition doesn't solve the multitude of issues, but it's a necessary and essential building block to fixing the system. Handing out $B in non-competed contracts is bad in just about every aspect, and the trend in DoD just in the past 3 years is staggering. I guess the capstone, in my opinion, was VXX because of the visibility, the desire for an OTS product, and DoD Leadership's constant rhetoric about "better buying power", competition, and even Congress lauding WSARA as a fix. Only to have the Services ignore all of it and do the easier thing.:ugh:

If we don't fix the system and hold people accountable for failures like VH-71(I don't recall hearing anybody other than Industry losing their jobs over a $3.5B failure), we will suffer the same fate as the former USSR, eventually, when it comes to equipping our military. OUR economy cannot support that kind of extreme inefficiency, and we are just now starting to see the symptoms.

[Lonewolf_50]

As I suspected, we are in agreement in a lot of areas, despite our disagreeing. :ok::}

[Ian Corrigible]

The S-92 (like the 747-8) was always the logical choice for a nation with as large an aerospace industry as the USA (just as the Airbus & Super Puma combo is for France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_transports_of_heads_of_state_and_government#France) and Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_transports_of_heads_of_state_and_government#Germany)), but the claim that the VXX bidding was 'competitive (http://www.defensedaily.com/navy-says-presidential-helicopter-bidding-was-competitive)' ("...because the companies who declined to bid remained interested up to the August deadline for responding to the RFP...") is questionable.

I/C

[SansAnhedral]

VXX Will Be Less Complex Says Sikorsky?s Maurer | Farnborough 2014 content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-2014/vxx-will-be-less-complex-says-sikorsky-s-maurer)

The customer is "going to get an aircraft that is identical to those operated by our commercial customers, a green S-92, an FAA certified aircraft…and that does great things for the program," Maurer says.

Oh boy. This would seem to indicate...the odds it will incorporate honest 30 minute run dry? Extremely remote.

[Peter-RB]

It seems to me, that any competition to find the best , is a sham, Sovereign states be they US or EU or UK should Always purchase from their national bank of Companies who are experts at whatever type of kit you are looking for, politically , and in the minds of the citizens of that sort of state see that as being fair to the country were the citizens taxes are paid, segments of additional profit should then come from the unstable states in the middle east where Petro Dollars and sense seems to be governed by how much Baksheesh can be fitted into a Camels Saddlebag .

However all the "Good Guys" seem to now have rules now allegedly banning that sort of deal,...... don't they?

Just my thoughts.

Peter R-B
Lancashire

[Stinger10]

FAA proposes S-92 oil pump failure prevention mandate

By: STEPHEN TRIMBLE
WASHINGTON DC
Source: Flightglobal.com

The US Federal Aviation Administration has proposed to mandate a series of actions already recommended by Sikorsky aimed at preventing a main gearbox oil pump failure on the airframer’s S-92 helicopter.

The proposals include automating a process to switch a bypass valve if oil pressure drops below 2.4bar (35psi), and installing a sensor that would detect an oil pressure drop and alert the pilot, the notice of proposed rulemaking issued on 23 July says.

The FAA would also require software changes to give the pilot visual and aural warnings of an oil pump failure in the S-92's main gearbox.
Publishing the draft rule in the Federal Register is the first step in the FAA’s rulemaking process. The public now has a chance to comment on the rule until 22 September.

Sikorsky has already advised S-92 operators to make the same hardware and software changes in a series of service bulletins issued by the company from 2011 to 2013.

The bulletins and rulemaking process were launched following the 2009 crash of an S-92 off Newfoundland, Canada in which 17 people died, due to a loss of oil in the main gearbox.

The FAA document also discloses another incident of a leaking oil pump.
The S-92’s manual requires the pilot to manually switch the bypass valve within 5s of an oil pump failure alert. In this case it took the pilot significantly longer to make the manual switch, the FAA says.
The incident persuaded the FAA that the manual process was impractical, which led to the recommendation to automate the switch.


I am sure the NEW Presidential Helos will include this option and help soften the developmental bill to the OEM.

:ouch:

[Hot_LZ]

Is that a recent article?

The MGB cooler now has an auto bypass and MGB pump fail is a caution that will now illuminate.

Hot LZ

[GreenKnight121]

Yes, it is. Here is the direct link to the article: FAA proposes S-92 oil pump failure prevention mandate - 7/31/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faa-proposes-s-92-oil-pump-failure-prevention-mandate-402245/)
Note the dates in the byline:
By: Stephen Trimble (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Stephen%20Trimble.html) Washington DC 10:50 31 Jul 2014 Source: Flightglobal.com

[The Sultan]

Their was an EASA/FAA/Industry rule making group meeting last week in Cologne addressing oil out issues to tighten the wording so no one can skate on marketing propaganda.

The Sultan